After the presidential debate this week, Frank Luntz did another of his suspicious focus groups. This time, it was comprised of “undecided voters,” most of whom “voted for Barack Obama in 2008.” Although we never found out just how Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative those ex-Obama supporters were, lo and behold, most of them no longer supported him. Last night, Bob Beckel visited The O’Reilly Factor and blasted Luntz’ work.
Beckel noted that he “used to be in the polling business” and was “a little suspicious” about how the participants were chosen.
Beckel also criticized Luntz for acting like a “cheerleader” and taking “center stage” instead of unobtrusively listening to what the participants have to say. Beckel said, “With all due respect to Luntz, that is not the way you do a focus group. It’s just ridiculous… It doesn’t rise to the standard of your show, Bill.”
“It makes for good TV,” Beckel acknowledged. As a Fox News contributor, he didn’t state the obvious, but I will. “Good TV” is not supposed to be the standard for “fair and balanced” news.
As is typical of progressives today, you attack the messenger when the message creates cognitive dissonance with your finely crafted delusional worldview.
I find it very satisfying that while you attack Luntz personally in all sorts of infantile ways, the real world data confirms all of his findings as Romney continues to inexorably clean the clock of your empty suit of a president.
I also understand why progressives hate Fox News so much. It is the only major media outlet that is not shamelessly in the tank for your failed “hope and change” messiah who is now, thankfully, just two weeks short of being kicked all the way back to Chicago.
In 2009 he wrote a memo, âThe Language of Health Care,â and sent it to Republicans to recommend how they should speak about health care reform. He suggested that they refer to “a Washington takeover.”
When he was told point blank that “a Washington takeover” is not what was being proposed, his response was not to acknowledge the truth, but instead to say, “We want to avoid a Washington takeover.”
See? That’s his formula. He doesn’t characterize things with any relationship to the truth, but instead makes things up and then defends it by saying “wants to avoid” or “is concerned about” the thing he made up.
Here — let me give you an example. I could say something like this:
Dear Newshounds: I object to any blog post that contains any mention of Frank Luntz. I am deeply concerned about predatory pedophiles.
If asked if I really think that Frank Luntz is a predatory pedophile, I would simply reply that “I am deeply concerned about predatory pedophiles.”
NOTE TO LUNTZ
The Fashion Police is calling.
Rise to the standard of POS borally’s ALL SPIN FACTOR? I guess Beckel has a point. POS borally’s show sits on the scum at the bottom of the cesspool. Luntz the putz and his fake focus groups sit in the scum.
“According to Salon.com, “In 1997, Luntz was formally reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for his work polling on the GOP’s 1994 ‘Contract with America’ campaign document. Luntz told the media that everything in the contract had the support of at least 60 percent of the general public. Considering the elementary phrasing of that document (stop violent criminals, protect our kids, strong national defense), it seems almost laughably uncontroversial. But one of AAPOR’s 1,400 members wasn’t so amused, and filed a complaint requesting to see Luntz’s research and a verification of the figure. Luntz’s response? He couldn’t reveal the information because of client confidentiality”